BRAND SAYS SCHOOL DISTRICT OPERATIONS CAUSED CONCERNS

Superintendent tells grand jury things ‘didn’t seem right’

Sweetwater Union High School District Superintendent Ed Brand told a criminal grand jury that the way the district operated in 2011, when he returned after a six-year hiatus, “just didn’t seem right.”

According to Brand, three school board members asked him to solicit campaign funds from the district’s construction manager for voter-approved school bond projects. Board members would meet with contractors before and after public meetings, often going over issues on the agenda, he testified.

The president of the construction management firm told Brand he regularly met with board members individually, and that he contributed “substantial sums” of campaign contributions to each of the board members, Brand said.

“Our district from ’95 to 2005 received probably more statewide and national recognition than any district in this county,” Brand said, referring to his first tenure at the helm. “We were humming.”

Brand was brought back to the district in 2011, to replace Jesus Gandara after a series of U-T Watchdog stories shed light on questionable dealings with money and contractors.

“When I came back, I was just astonished,” Brand said. “Not only was the morale low, but the way we did things just didn’t seem right.”

Brand’s testimony is transcribed among 4,000 pages of testimony from secret grand jury proceedings in November and December, in the case of 15 officials and contractors charged in a South County corruption probe by District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis. The testimony was released last week.

The defendants, who do not include Brand, are accused of exchanging meals and other considerations for multimillion-dollar school construction contracts. Gandara is one of those facing charges, and they have pleaded not guilty.

Deputy District Attorney Leon Schorr questioned Brand on topics including why he departed from Sweetwater originally in 2005, the relationships between elected officials, contractors and various foundations affiliated with the district, and the board members’ knowledge of conflict-of-interest laws.

Brand said he expressed concern about the relationship between contractors and several of the board members (notably Bertha Lopez and Pearl Quiñones), as well as the influence certain contractors wielded around the district.

He said that within the first six to eight days of his arrival, Lopez, Quiñones and John McCann asked him to solicit campaign donations from SGI President Rene Flores and Jaime Ortiz, the company’s bond manager. SGI managed the district’s $644 million Proposition O bond campaign.

Brand said he refused to oblige the request.

“For the first three board members, I said I’m not doing that,” Brand said.

Brand said that his first meeting back at the district, he was surprised that Ortiz sat with district staff, and that board members would call directly on contractors, as opposed to staff, to answer questions.

When Brand asked Ortiz to sit elsewhere, Brand said, Lopez accused him of being racist.

Brand said that contractors would approach Lopez and Quiñones before and after meetings, a practice he said he advised them to stop.

Brand said that in his first meeting with Flores, the contractor told Brand that he would meet a few times a year with board members.

“I said I really did not want that to happen and I asked him repeatedly not to do so,” Brand said. “I don’t think that discouraged him.

“I indicated to all board members... that I had asked him not to do so. Again, I don’t know that that had any benefit. But it seemed very, very unusual,” Brand said.

In the same meeting, Brand said that Flores “made it known very clearly” that he contributed to all the elected officials’ campaigns.

“And it certainly inferred to me that he expected something in return,” Brand said. “I told him it wasn’t going to work with me.”

Brand departed the district in 2005 amid criticism of similar issues at Sweetwater, Schorr suggested in his questions.

“Now, to be fair, prior to you leaving there was also... accusations of too close contacts between board members, even yourself, with vendors as you described; is that fair to say?” Schorr asked Brand.

Brand acknowledged the reason for his initial departure in 2005, saying he left because of disagreements with the board — in particular, former board member Jaime Mercado.

Brand said that he and Mercado, who was elected in 2004 and served one term on the board, clashed over Brand’s reprimand of Mercado when he was a principal in the district.

“I made the conscious decision that I did not believe that I could work with that gentleman, nor did I want to, so I sought employment elsewhere,” Brand said. “He made it pretty well known publicly and otherwise he was going to do everything in his power to make my life miserable. It’s never been my interest to be where I’m not wanted.”

As to his second term of office, Brand said the criminal prosecutions have been a distraction — “like ripping the scab off an open wound every three months because every three months this is in the news.”

The prosecutor asked Brand whether it’s important to hold officials accountable for their actions, and the superintendent responded, “Absolutely.”

He added, “If I knew what I know when they asked me to come back, I wouldn’t have done it.”